I'm a sad customer, ethical question... :(

<p>I recently bid on a photos shoot for my holiday cards at a silent auction and won. I did it to save money and went through with the shoot only to find we will not get the photos digitally unless we spend a minim of $1500 on prints and then we can buy single medium sized images at $50 a piece, for only the ones we ordered. They are such beautiful pictures but we can not afford this. <br />The photographer keeps touting how she only has a high end clientele and this is the work they expect and appreciate, but we are not high end and I'm not sure why she'd donate a photography package (that we bid $150 for) that was seemingly a "prize" for the high bidder, at a little league fundraiser in a modest town, if her clientele was so high, or that given the circumstance she wouldn't make an exception since this is a donated service.... It's only a partial donation and now I'm getting the short end of the stick as the high bidder. I saw bidding on this item as an opportunity to be able to afford something nice while supporting my local community, and like I said, I just feel completely taken advantage of... And my photos held hostage. I will add that we have agreed to purchase $850 worth of metal prints for our walls, I'm not even a fan of the ONE single family picture she offered us, but she still won't release files other then thumbnails of ONLY the ones we are ordering. <br />Any suggestions? Is this ethical? <br />I'm so sad. My family struggles to make ends meet financially, and this was a creative investment that was supposed to help us and our community, and I've told her that and she offered me a payment plan to buy a $600 album with ALL the 23 prints laid out in the board book album how she deems artistic. She is giving me 25 Christmas cards free as a consolation prize at the bargain bid winning $150, but designing the card as she sees fit. She will TRY to find a card that fits all 3 kids plus a family photo (the one I don't like) or if she can't find that in her purchased templates, she will just use only the family photo (yes the one I don't like again). I don't get a choice on cards even. I'm so sad.<br />Any suggestions are very appreciated.</p>

<p>I would definitely talk w/ the organizers of the silent auction. It sounds pretty unethical and very very poor 'form'.</p>

<p>Thanks Howard, I could do that, but I'm just wondering if I could have a good approach to her first. I never signed a contract so I hope we can negotiate. <br>

I already spent $150 to in, then another $45 for 25 more xmas cards, and we are buying 4 metal wall prints at around $850.... We do see the investment and appreciate that but I want the pictures! I just feel held hostage and defenseless. She won't even give me a contact sheet. Thing is I would totally refer her for her talent, I just had a friend ask me the other day to refer her to a photographer, but I won't, nor will I EVER refer her or give her repeat business for ethics alone. She could have had both. She's unfair, I feel.</p>

<p>Your bid of $150 was for the 'sitting'. Probably good value, depending on the photographer's talents. I charge between $300 and $450, depending on the number of individuals and whether the customer travels to me or vice versa. However, I have never charged a minimum for prints. That seems a little vicious for a charity fund-raiser. The images belong to her and she can do as she sees fit. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>My family struggles to make ends meet financially</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know many families who could never spend $1000 for photography. <br>

Was there no 'fine print' with this item when you placed your bid?</p>

<p>Anne, what exactly were you bidding on? What did it say you would get for your silent auction item? What did you expect to get from the silent auction item?</p>

<p>Silent auctions have fairly detailed descriptions of the item and what you get when you bid on it.</p>

<p>Why do you need/want the digital images? <br>

Digital images are not automatically yours. They belong to the photographer. And unless they explicitly are included in the package you bid on for the silent auction then her not giving you digital images is not an unethical thing to do. <br>

I think more than an ethical issue with the photographer this sounds more like a simple misunderstanding between you and the photographer which can be solved through careful communication usually. </p>

<p>I am not making any assumptions about how kind or callous the photographer is being I just have to figure it out based on what you have written here which has nothing to do with the photographers personality.</p>

<p>Nothing was spelled out, but as a consumer who is cluless as to photographer terms, as most consumers would be because we were all chattering at the auction how awesome it would be for holiday photos.... it seemed as though it was a package, and I did ask the auctioneer if it was for digitals and told yes.<br>

Thanks for your answers, Howard I appreciate your lack of understanding for BS when you smell it, and calling it like you see it, it's refreshing.<br>

I see this as her way of advertising to make bigger sales, and could have probably cared less about the charity, and more about getting business out of it unethically. Not to say photographers wouldn't donate to charity for business or advertising, but do it right. I would have referred her and used her as a paying customer year after year and spread the word. At this point I feel like post in the experience on Angies list, but I can't find it in me to trash anyone even if they deserve it. Whats that going to prove?<br>

I have to say, most people would see this "package" which is the exact wording on the bid sheet .... "You are bidding for a "photoshoot PACKAGE" with "Name of photographer". <br>

(The highest bid was $35 before I blew it out of the water, because normally I pay $200 for my photo shoot for xmas cards before buying cards, and I thought $150 was a good cause and still a savings with a new refreshing photographer from the one I use to work with who is not working anymore. Man I appreciated her now after this!)<br>

Everyone would have safely assumed it. And yes it's wrong to throw in just the sitting. As someone put it, its like getting the uncorking fee, but no wine. I mean, why do that for a charity. If you really wanted to give to a charity, then give it, and don't make it seem like what it's not. OR spell it out and she didn't. I hope as photographers, no one would ever do such a thing.<br>

Honestly I wish I could get my money back, but I gave to a good cause, plus now there is a finished product and now that I've seen them, I love them. She managed to capture my kids beautifully. There's no turning back now.<br>

Just sucks I guess.</p>

<p>This sounds like a lot of assumptions to me. "Package" can mean anything depending on the photographer and digital images are never guaranteed and belong to the photographer.</p>

<p>Always ask questions and be very clear on what you are purchasing before you spend money. It is the auction organizers responsibility as much as the photographers to make sure that the item is clearly labeled and what the auction item includes is very easy to understand.</p>

<p>If the auction item was very clearly spelled out and the photographer changed the terms of the auction item after the fact then I can see grounds for complaint. </p>

<p>I would approach the charity organization and express your concerns to them. THEY have the power. And if that photographer wants to be a part of that charity's fundraisers in the future, it would be in her best interest to do the right thing.<br>

She flim flammed the "prize" and is now holding the photos hostage.<br>

What "exactly" were you supposed to get for the $150.00 bid ? Just the session with nothing else ? <br>

Of did you assume you got prints, cards or the digital files ?<br>

All of that other nonsense she's selling about high end clients blah blah blah is just that, nonsense. This was a charity fundraiser, not some opportunity to pull the wool over someone's eyes by appearing to want to be helping the charity out with her services.<br>

I've done charity auctions for the past 20 years plus. My "package " always includes the session and one 16x20 gallery wrap. There are no hidden agendas. It's spelled out staight forward. <br>

What she's doing is "gaming" her prize in the name of the organization and I'm sure they would not be happy with that. <br>

Work through them. </p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Anne... I feel for you. Just recently I was looking at similar "pportrait package" at a church silent auction. The photographer is a parent in my kid's class so I did not hesitate to continue the conversation beyond "sitting and ?by? ? print". I can't recall what size the print was. But the description only spoke of those two items being included as part of the winning bid. She made it very clear in that short discussion that anything else is additional cost. It is too bad that it was not as clearly stated on the auction description as it was in the conversation. No deception, no flim-flam, no lies... if one reads exactly the words that were written and assumes noting more.</p>

<p>This person is very talented so I'm sure the package was work whatever the winning bids were. But it is clear that she offers these as an entry into additional work at additional cost. I do not think that is unethical unless promises were made and then broken. That would be both unethical and possibly illegal.</p>

<p>Unfortunately it is a "lesson learned" at this point. Glad to hear that you like the photographer's work.</p>

<p>What you are technically entitled to depends on what was offered in return for the winning bid. Vague descriptions of a package, without more detail, can be construed to include at least some sort of images to use. Its one thing to try to make additional sales or even make some upsell offer but it sounds like what were read above...</p>

<p><em>She flim flammed the "prize" and is now holding the photos hostage.</em></p>

<p>If that's the case, the charity organization should know that its reputation is being harmed by this type of behavior. I can't imagine it would want shady participants. Moreover, I can't imagine a photographer wanting to risk the potential negative publicity of them using a charity as a vehicle for shady schemes unless they are stupid.</p>

<p>Personally, I feel that when a business owner is "using" a charity's event to gain exposure and make the public "think" that they support that charity, that they would be not use the opportunity to try to "game" an auction prize, regardless or how upfront they are. <br>

It's one thing to conduct business for our benefit in the normal fashion, but when using a charity's good name in an effort to make money, well i'm sorry but that strikes me as unethical. </p>

 

<p>If this works like every other charity silent auction I have ever known, the charity gets the bid money. So, yes, the charity is supported.</p>

<p>In another thread the OP mentions that she asked the auctioneer if digital pics were included... and he said "yes". It appears that he was mistaken, or misinformed, or making a commitment that he/she shouldn't be making.</p>

<p><a href="/business-photography-forum/00c9Lr?unified_p=1">http://www.photo.net/business-photography-forum/00c9Lr?unified_p=1</a></p>

<p>[snark on] If that is the case, then suing the charity for the balance of what was assumed/promised but not delivered might be in order [snark off]</p>

<p>But, personally speaking, I'm shocked that the only description was "photography package". I have never seen a silent auction item so poorly and incompletely described.</p>

<p>Was this <em><strong>the exact and only description</strong> </em>of what you were bidding on?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>"You are bidding for a "photoshoot PACKAGE" with (Name of photographer)"</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If this was the exact and only description which was on the silent auction sheet: my opinion is, that description was <strong>inadequate.</strong> <br />As you have stated that you asked specifically the Auctioneer if Digital (files?) were included and the Auctioneer confirmed that such were: then my advice is to contact the Manager of the Charity concerned.<br /><br /><br />From what has been revealed so far, <strong>the description of the Bidding Lot is the primary source of the confusion that both you and the Photographer are now in.</strong></p>

<p>I would be reluctant to agree that the Photographer is acting unethically at this point and at this point assuming she is so will not assist you achieving your goal.</p>

<p>As already mentioned, the Charity is in a better negotiating position, than are you and I suggest that you convey to the Charity your expectations of what you were bidding for: and also express to them that you based those expectations upon the conversation of the Bidding Lot's Contents that you had with the Auctioneer.</p>

<p>I wouldn't consider suing anyone, for anything.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>From what we have been told thusfar, the photographer seems quite confident and knowledgable about what the package comprised. The confusion is between the OP and the auctioneer. :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>". . . the photographer seems quite confident and [knowledgeable] about what the package comprised.The <strong>confusion is <em>between</em> the OP and the auctioneer</strong>."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. I agree. If it wasn't clear, that was one of the points which I was stating. And that's why I suggested that the OP address that with the Charity's Management.</p>

<p>Another separate point that I was making, is that the Photographer appears also now to be in that confusion. It is possible that the Photographer caused none of the confusion at all.</p>

<p>It is good to be open to all possibilities and directly address the primary source of the issue: which is the lack of adequate description of the Bidding Lot.<br /><br />WW</p>

<p>As someone who has managed (in a previous life!) numerous silent auctions, I would also encourage you to talk the organizers of the auction and see if who ever approached the photographer got any additional details about the deal. You are probably just out of luck on this one but I think the organization certainly needs to know what's going on. </p>

<p>I had a similar situation once when a provider tried to 'change' the original offer. After a few phone calls using my 'mommy' voice and a formal letter, they finally came through, but you can be sure we never asked that person to participate again. </p>

No, the photographer was aware, and she told me, " they shouldn't have told you that." I'm a professional who photographs only the

upper income demographics, like professional ball players, and you were supposed to call me to shoot within one week of the auction

(news to me). Now that we are past it, since you didn't know, I'm willing to give you my photo session fees free.... I normally charge

200.00., and I'll do a holiday mini session since you said you wanted an Xmas picture. I have templates and will put you r pics. Into a

card and give you 25 free, and you will have to pay for anything over. I will choose the template according to what you should do I with my

pictures. I can't do what the auction was for at this point since it's after a week since the auction, I'm sorry this is all I could offer now."

Ok, no one said I only had a week to shoot, wasn't written anywhere, and her consolation was a holiday mini shoot which I agreed to since I was afraid to lose all my money. Since she has templates and

printer paper, it's a wash to her other then sitting fees. I did not get what I bid for. Absolutely 100% did not. No confusion, just steam

rolling.

I didn't think fast enough, I mentioned I really wanted the disk, but she wouldn't honor it since it had been more then a week after the

auction. I didn't even get confirmation until well over a week. She then told me images were $50 per image. As time went on and she realized I just wanted images on disk, the images suddenly became medium resolution only, and only those images that I order on prints which she designs and frames or has mounted could be ordered for $50 not any others at all, and I couldn't even order any for $50 until I spent $1,500 first, then she'd let me buy them....

Etc. anyway it's costing me $850, plus I guess if I'm lucky, I get to get to BUY those 4 images on med res files... That's if she even allows me to without spending the $1,500 required to spend to buy med resolution pictures, (and I guess I will have to figure out the other 19

images, maybe the $600 8x8 board book photo album, NOT high def as she stated, the cheap one... I could buy too.... She let me know I could make monthly payments and try to pay off the price of the album.... How nice of her, and then she will print it for me sometime after I pay it off, probably 6 months or so. Then I get to buy, if I'm lucky because I'm just barely at $1,500 required to buy med res files at $50 each file... Then I still have to buy those, again, if she lets me.... Another $1000. And I'm not even sure a photo album counts for being able to buy the files.

She also told me she'd give me thumbnails of all the pics, but only if I place an order, (apparently she thinks they are big enough for Facebook sharing,) but once she realized I would do that instead of buy a photo album, she NOW says I can only have thumbnails of the ones I purchase. It's freaking BS! I'm getting more angry as I type. Trust me this was full on taken advantage of.

<p>Here is the point blank on this.... A woman like this should NEVER donate to charity unless she's willing to come off of her high horse for a moment and GIVE a little, the purpose of the charity. We were mislead all in the name of making a few bucks. It was wrong wrong wrong.</p>

<p>I think you really should go talk to the auction organizers and try to get their help in clearing this issue up. It sounds like they did not communicate clearly enough with the photographer and the auction description was not detailed enough.</p>

<p>I agree Kyle, but she also keeps changing her story to get me to buy more. I think once she realized I had $850, she could get more out of me... And we really don't have the $850, but we are willing to invest in a life long photo cluster for our family and home. Again, there is no doubt she is quite talented. I will never discount that.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's freaking BS! I'm getting more angry as I type. Trust me this was full on taken advantage of . . . Here is the point blank on this.... A woman like this should NEVER donate to charity unless she's willing to come off of her high horse for a moment and GIVE a little, the purpose of the charity. We were mislead all in the name of making a few bucks. It was wrong wrong wrong.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But nothing really has changed.<br>

Based on the “facts” i.e. assuming what is put in quotation marks, is what was actually said, there are still two key possibilities:</p>

<p>1. Your interpretation <strong><em>might</em></strong> be correct: the Photographer <strong><em>may have</em></strong> mislead the Charity Organizers and has now changed that offer, to you.<br>

HOWEVER:<br>

2. It might also be that the Photographer <strong><em>gave a clear account to the Charity Organizers</em></strong> of what she was offering and the Charity Organization failed in providing an adequate description of the Ballot Lot.</p>

<p>Either way the Causal Point of the Confusion is the description (or lack of it), at the Auction.<br>

And my advice is still that you address that issue: with the Charity.<br>

My additional advice still also remains: that it is counterproductive to your cause, to get emotional and angry at the Photographer.</p>

<p>WW </p>

<p>I mean... I joined the forum to get advice. What would I have to gain in the situation if I wasn't stating the truth, that's ridiculous. I;m here for help.</p>

<p>The other thing is that as the day went on and my thoughts were confirmed, I began to get angry, according to most people on here, rightfully so.</p>

<p>I have been nothing but kind, considerate, and cordial to her when at her home (where she has her studio). I am very complimentary and willing as a customer to invest. She knows that and would probably tell you I am very pleasant to work with. I have just decided to vent on here to see if what is happening is ok, and suggestions on how to handle. </p>

<p>I think where I am going to go from here, is speak to the auction committee in confidence and ask they do not make a big deal, but see if she will honor the initial agreement. Especially since they never told me about a week expiration date, which quite frankly is ridiculous in itself.<br>

Thanks for all the advice everyone. I appreciate it.</p>

 

<p>If what you now say is true, specifically (photographer said) "... I can't do what the auction was for at this point since it's after a week since the auction, I'm sorry this is all I could offer now." then you should listen to WW and contact the charity organizers. Two issues: 1. the auction item is not being honored and 2. there was an undisclosed and unreasonable term, namely the 1-week redemption period.</p>

<p>Or... resign your self to the fact that you did a nice thing for the Little League and contributed some money to their cause. If nothing else, it was probably a break-even in terms of your "investment". It is always nice in charity auctions to get more than your monies worth but maybe that is in the cards for you next year. :)</p>

<p>Again, I'm here for advice, if I said anything other then what it was, I'd get bad advice in return. It's not like any of you are coning to contact her yourselves and tell her, so I have no reason to state anything other then truth.</p>

<p>As I said above, will contact them in confidence. Just upsetting. I feel taken advantage of.</p>

<p>Anne, since you are asking for advice... please allow me to be devil's advocate for a moment. <br>

<br />1. You feel taken advantage of....? Under no circumstances did anyone actually REQUIRE you to purchase anything extra. If you go into Nordstrom's, get a personal attendent, and use a free gift certificate to purchase a new skirt... that saleslady is going to try to upsell you a shirt, shoes, and jewelry to go with it! An entitled mentality is unnerving to say the least. Not every photography business gives away a disk. You bid on a "photo shoot" (as your first post stated) The photographer likely didn't make a dime of it, with the entire session fee going to the little league. She most likely spend over 5 hours preparing, taking, editing, and presenting your photos- that's over five hours that she could have spent with a client that actually paid her. But she did it gladly for you... because she's a good person who wanted to help the little league.<br>

2. I'm glad you loved the photos that were taken! (note that I said "the photos" not "Your Photos") there is a big difference. The photographer made beautiful art with your family... if you like it enough to take it home and invest in it... that's fantastic! Please don't punish the photographer for trying to buy food for her family.<br>

3. Crying poor is no excuse for being a bully. If I take my car to get it's oil changed, and they mention that they could also rotate my tires, give my car a new paint job, and detail the inside... I don't start crying and whining because he won't do it for the same price as the discount oil change coupon! Those services aren't "mine" to claim.<br>

4. Now, I realize the wording in the description of what you bought was a bit gray. It might not have been her fault. There were so many people involved in that auction- it most likely was just some nice secretary/assistant writing it out- I am SURE it was not intended to pull a fast one on you!<br>

5. Customers need to learn that there are different levels of photographers- the Big Mac, $1 menu photographers that offer a disk with images for little more than a tank of gas would cost. Do you know how much they are living on? (if they are actually living on it, and paying taxes... which most don't, honestly, so they are illegally working) Very, very little money is made (comparable to the lowest job you can think of... maybe stocking shelves at a supermarket) There is another level of photographer that pays taxes, does their own accounting, pays insurance, runs a legal and legitimate business- a professional. This photographer charges more, because they are worth more. There is more on the line if they fail. *chefs at McDonald's vs. chefs at the Waldorf Astoria*........ would you really feel ok asking that Waldor Astoria chef to cook you a Big Mac? <br>

Food for thought.... I'm sorry if this comes across the wrong way, but the thread was started, and I had to say something. </p>